All buildings worldwide combined use 40% of the global
energy and are responsible for one third of global energy-related greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions.1 The
majority of GHG emissions of buildings come from fossil fuel energy in several
stages of the life cycle. The embodied or embedded GHG emissions comes from the
processing of raw materials, manufacturing of products, transportation of materials
and products in the supply chain and distribution system until it arrives at
the jobsite. It includes labor and construction activities required for
assembling, erecting buildings and how demolition and waste is handled. When
construction is complete the operations stage begins. GHG emissions from
operations come from heating, cooling, and electrical uses. Other GHG emissions
though not being accounted for now, come from transporting occupants to and
from the building, how waste is handled and the maintenance of the building.1,280%–90%
GHG emissions of buildings are emitted in the operations stage during the
life-span of the building; 10%–20% GHG emissions are from the embodied energy
and other carbon emissions related to the construction stage.1 The
greatest potential for low-hanging fruit in cost effective, quick, deep GHG
reduction and mitigation is found in the construction industry.2 With
currently available and proven technologies, reductions in energy consumption
on both new and existing buildings are estimated to achieve 30%–80%. When the
costs of implementing the energy reduction technologies are offset by energy
savings, there is potential for a net profit over the life span of the
building.1

Much has been done
to study energy reductions, define GHG emissions, and develop metrics and
protocols for measuring and reporting carbon emissions. This paper addresses
the “How”; How energy consumption of a house was reduced almost 70%. How CO2 emission
was reduced 44%. How embodied GHG emissions of the house were measured and
certified carbon neutral. How U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED for
Homes platinum certification was attained. How actual savings from energy
reductions are able to pay back up-front cost of implementing technologies and
begin earning a profit in fifteen years. How reducing electric consumption has
the greatest impact in reducing energy costs and reducing CO2 emissions
compared to propane and #2 fuel oil. How earning LEED points provided a
surprise benefit of mitigating overall GHG emissions by earning carbon offsets.
How these achievements and findings were accomplished in the reconstruction of
one home.

Hamptons
Green Alliance

In March 2008, the
Hamptons Green Alliance (HGA) was formed. It is a not-for-profit organization
whose founding members are one builder and several trade contractors in
residential construction. Through collaboration, the HGA finds practical
solutions for green building technologies, implements these technologies, and
educates the consumer. The HGA is believed to be the first of its kind
organization in the country and received national recognition immediately.3

HGA House

The HGA members
began to understand, through collaboration, people plying the trades who
possess practical knowledge of green technologies could achieve higher goals
than if each attempted it individually. The HGA decided to test its ability by
submitting a request to the architectural community seeking an opportunity to
build a ultra-green luxury home. The HGA made the commitment to build the
project at cost and solicit contributions from vendors. An architect came
forward with a client that wished to reconstruct a house after a fire destroyed
a large portion of the structure. A total gut renovation was required that
would allow incorporating many new green technologies. An agreement between
owner and builder, Telemark Inc. was executed to reconstruct the house, it became
known as the HGA house.4 Figure 1 shows the
existing house before work commenced and Figure 2 shows the HGA
house completed.

Fig 1.

Before—existing
house.

Fig 2.

After—current
house.

THE
GOALS

Net-Zero Energy

A building that
produces equal or more energy than it consumes, preferably through on site,
renewable sources is Net-Zero Energy. Fossil fuel based energy production is minimized,
generally using heat sources from solar thermal and geothermal energy
production systems together with renewable photovoltaic systems and wind
generators. The building usually remains attached to the electric grid with a
net-meter installed to measure the difference between electrical energy
produced and electrical energy consumed over a period of time.5 Some
buildings are off grid independent of publicly available energy sources.

Embodied Carbon Neutral

Embodied carbon or
embodied energy of construction activities, subcontractors, labor,
transportation to the job site and materials are measured and calculated based
on currently available data bases and carbon accounting protocols. A Phase I
carbon audit was performed to determine GHG emissions associated with the
construction stage of the building. The total GHG emissions were offset by
carbon mitigation programs and certified carbon offsets were purchased. When
the total GHG emissions are offset 100% by carbon mitigation offsets and
purchased carbon offsets, carbon neutral status is achieved. It must be noted
that there were no established metrics or protocols to measure and calculate
embodied GHG emissions of the construction stage of a building at the time a
commitment was made. A methodology was developed based on accepted protocols
including carbon accounting of businesses, life cycle assessment (LCA),
embodied carbon accounting of materials, offset mitigation, and offset
projects. The firm Verus Carbon Neutral6 was
retained to assist in measuring and calculating GHG emissions.

LEED Platinum Certification

“LEED, or
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is an internationally recognized
green building certification system. Developed by the USGBC in March 2000, LEED
provides building owners and operators with a framework for identifying and
implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction,
operations, and maintenance solutions.”7 LEED
for Homes was released in 2007. There are four certification levels; Certified,
silver, gold, and platinum. LEED for Homes rating system is based on points
earned by meeting criteria in eight categories. A LEED for Homes score of 90
points or higher earns the platinum rating. To be considered green a house
needs to be “right-sized.” The HGA house is too large therefore it needed to
score 100 points or higher to attain a platinum rating.

CONSTRUCTION
APPROACHES

Integrated Design

The traditional
approach to design and construction process is “Design-Bid-Build.” The design
team, generally an architectural firm, designs a building and defines it by
drawings and specifications (construction documents). Some members of the
design team may have construction experience but generally are not experts in
construction. The design team generally creates the construction documents in a
vacuum, with little input from construction experts. Engineers sometimes assist
the design team on technical engineering issues. The construction documents are
sent to several general contractors (GC) or construction managers (CM), who
review the construction documents, interpret the content and provide the cost
estimate associated with construction known as a bid. The GC and CM are held to
the standard of a reasonable interpretation of the construction documents, not
the highest and best interpretation. The bid process generally occurs with
occasional questions of the design team for clarification on some unknown
perhaps missing information. A GC or CM is selected and awarded the bid to
begin construction. The process repeats itself when subcontractors bid their
work. This fragmented approach many times causes miscommunication,
misinterpretations, and confusion concerning the intent of the design team. It may
cause adversarial relationships that inhibit further communication and
collaboration. Many times miscommunication, misinformation, and
misinterpretation cause additional cost and time to be added to the project as
change orders or cost overruns. This is not the most efficient way to share and
manage information. When integrating new green technologies, communication and
collaboration needs to dramatically increase in order to achieve successful
outcomes.

The American
Institute of Architects (AIA) developed a concept of integrated design known as
integrated project delivery (IPD).8 The
LEED for Homes rating system awards points for implementing elements of
integrated design. IPD brings the design team, owner, contractor, and trade
contractors together during early stages of design phase to foster
collaboration, teamwork, information sharing, shared risks, and shared rewards.
Contributions early on in design by construction experts in each field allows
for more efficient integration of new technologies, some of which require input
from several trades at the same time. When all parties are in one room,
information is managed more efficiently and effectively.

The cost benefit of
coordinating trades while they are sitting at the table can be enormous
compared to addressing issues in the field while men are standing around and
work is stopped. The working environment, teamwork, collaboration is greatly
improved since the causes of adversarial relationships are mostly eliminated.
When collaboration is successful all parties contribute to the end result. This
fosters a sense of ownership during the design process for all parties, making
it more difficult to criticize or cast blame on a single person or entity.
Differences in interpretation of contract documents are addressed in the design
phase out in the open, around a table, not on the jobsite. When construction
commences all focus is on building and little time is wasted on solving design
issues. Information is managed more efficiently during design and during
construction.

Systems integrated home

The term “Systems
Integrated Home” (SIH) was developed by the HGA based on the intensified
complex interdependence of various building system required to meet set goals.
SIH is the integration of multiple means and methods of design and construction
to achieve maximum energy efficiencies. When the goal was set for net-zero
energy it was not as simple as slapping photovoltaic panels on the roof. The
architect threw the team a curve ball by deciding crystalline photo voltaic
(PV) panels were not aesthetically pleasing to him. Instead he specified a
building integrated photovoltaic (BIP) system known as thin-film. Electric
output of PV varies significantly between manufacturers. Thin-film’s electric
output is significantly less than Crystalline PV panel; the rule of thumb is
that thin-film produces 50% less electricity. This caused the team to study
reducing electrical consumption on a systems basis. Heating and cooling of the
house is performed by a water source geothermal heat pump. The geothermal
system uses a significant amount of electricity. The first course of action was
to take the load off heating and cooling by super insulating the building
envelope, installing energy efficient windows, doors and eliminating air
infiltration. Installation of a variable speed well pump helped to reduce the
amount of electricity to pump the water through the geothermal system.

An evacuated tube
solar thermal system was installed to generate energy for domestic hot water
production. It was thought that dumping excess hot water into the hot water
coils of the air handlers in the winter would reduce the load further on the
geothermal system. The lighting load was studied and it was found LED lighting
produces the same light output but reduced electric consumption by 85% from
incandescent lights.9 Fifty
two LED recessed lights were installed. An integrated home energy monitoring
system and other smart home technologies were installed to monitor energy usage
and automate several systems.

Results Of Integrated Design And Systems
Integrated Home

Residential Energy
Services Network (RESNET) developed a home energy rating system (HERS) to
measure the energy efficiency by a series of tests and inputs from plan review.
Obtaining a HERS Index is a prerequisite for the LEED for Homes rating system.
The HERS Index is based off a standard new home built according to the 2006
International Energy Conservation Code. The HERS Index 100 equals the energy
efficiency of that home. For each whole number less, it equals the same amount
percentage of energy savings. For example: a HERS Index 90 is 10 less than 100,
energy savings is 10% less than the 2006 Standard New Home.10 The
HGA house earned a HERS Index 25, meaning a 75% energy reduction from the 2006
Standard New Home is projected.

ATTAINING
THE GOALS

LEED For Homes Platinum Certification

Points were awarded
for certain criteria met within each group below. The sum of the points equals
the LEED score that determines the LEED for Homes rating. In the list below the
first number is the number of points earned, the second number is the maximum
number of points in each group.

·Innovation and design process: 9/11

·Location and linkages: 6/10

·Sustainable sites: 10/22

·Water efficiency: 13/15

·Energy and atmosphere: 33/38

·Materials and resources: 10/16

·Indoor environmental quality: 20/21

·Awareness and education: 3/3

The total number of
points earned was 104. The minimum number of points to attain LEED for Homes
platinum certification is 100. The HGA house was then certified LEED for Homes
platinum.

Embodied Carbon Neutral

Life cycle analysis
(LCA) is the accounting of GHG emissions during the products entire life cycle,
from gathering of raw materials to disposal at the end of the product’s life.
Cradle-to-Gate LCA is the accounting for GHG emissions from the beginning of a
products life until it reaches the consumer. Determining LCA data on building
materials, products and buildings are in the infancy stage with only a few
private companies that voluntarily perform LCA on their products. LCA standards
created by the World Resources Institute remain in draft form and little
information is available.11 Accounting
for embodied GHG emissions in buildings is fragmented and contains data on
embodied GHG emissions of materials. The common carbon metric measures only the
energy used and GHG emissions of the operations stage of buildings.2 It
is understandable to begin measuring GHG emissions at the operation stage since
80%–90% GHG emissions of a building occur then. The goal was to measure the GHG
emissions embodied in the construction stage of the HGA house. A methodology
was developed that may be the beginning of a framework to measure embodied GHG
emissions in buildings.

Since there is
little LCA data on manufactured products used in construction, the focus was on
the embodied GHG emissions of materials incorporated in the products and
materials that were used directly in construction. For example, there is no LCA
data of a GE refrigerator, however, an estimate can be made of materials that
are used in a GE refrigerator. Some data on embodied GHG emissions of materials
exist. Some data is based on averages and others disclaim accuracy. While
embodied GHG emissions of a house cannot be accurately measured at this time,
estimates of GHG emissions are able to be made as well as the development of a
framework. As LCA data becomes more standardized and readily available,
accuracy will improve. Other well accepted protocols were used for measurements
of GHG emissions in construction.12

This level of
calculation is defined as “Phase I.” This includes the embodied GHG emissions
of materials used, transportation to the job site, energy used in construction
activities such as electric and heat, subcontractor Scope I, II, and III GHG
emissions attributed to this project, demolition, waste disposal, and
recycling. Since labor was subcontracted the measurement includes labor in the
construction of the HGA house.

The members of the
HGA committed to certify their businesses carbon neutral. The first reason to
do this was to lead by example and walk-the-talk by certifying their business
green. The second reason is a carbon neutral contractor will not have an
emission impact on any project he works on for a period of one year. Scope I,
II, and III carbon audits were performed by Verus Carbon Neutral. The HGA
members purchased carbon offsets from Verus that were retired from the Chicago
climate exchange (CCX) Registry to offset 100% GHG emissions and each member
was certified carbon neutral.

For the remainder
of the subcontractors, a pro-rata sum of their Scope I, II, and III GHG
emissions were accounted for on this project. The pro-rata calculation was
based on the percentage of their contract in relation to gross revenues. For
example: If a subcontractor’s contract on the HGA house was $10,000 and gross
revenues for the year was $100,000, then 10% of GHG emissions measured was
attributed to the HGA house.

Carbon offsets were
earned for GHG mitigation performed as a result of landfill avoidance. The EPA
maintains an online calculation of carbon offsets in the waste reduction model
(WARM).13 Earning
LEED points for recycling materials provided a surprise benefit by also
providing offsets to mitigate the cost of purchasing carbon offsets. Waste on
the HGA house was significant since there was a fire and significant amount of
deconstruction was required. Quantities of recycled waste documented during the
LEED process was calculated providing 107 mt CO2e offset. The GHG
emission values are summed and the EPA WARM offsets subtracted to find the
total Phase I embodied GHG emissions is 957.43 mt. Table 1 identifies the
GHG emission in each line item.

958 mt CO2e
Offsets were purchased from Verus Carbon Neutral, retired from the CCX Registry
and the HGA house certified Phase I carbon neutral.

Net-Zero Energy

To claim a building
is net-zero energy, the building needs to operate for one year while energy
usage is monitored. If the building produces equal to or more energy than it
consumes, the building is net-zero energy. We did not reach this goal. There
are many reasons we believe we did not which we will address.

The early designs
included a building integrated maglev, vertical access wind turbine (VAWT). The
manufacturer claimed a maglev VAWT could be integrated into the house since no
vibrations were generated to transmit through the building and the vanes of the
turbine were designed to capture the additional wind energy deflecting up the
roof slope. A wind anemometer was installed on the site and found the average
wind speed to be nine miles per hour. The manufacturer could not substantiate
electrical output at the average wind speed recorded. The team researched other
manufacturers and made a recommendation to the owner to install a VAWT on a
pole. The cost of the installed VAWT together with electric output data
supplied by the manufacturer could not substantiate a reasonable pay-back
period. The owner decided against moving forward with the VAWT. The team
reluctantly concurred based on the premise that renewable energy technologies
need to be reasonably cost justified. We are aware of developing technologies
that create more efficient energy production of VAWT but they were not
available at the time of this project. Integrating efficient wind energy
generators are a key ingredient in this area since wind is present when the sun
does not shine, sometimes in great quantities.

Incorporating the
best designs, best engineering, and best green buildings technologies energy
reduction relies on how efficiently building occupants use energy. Owners of
green buildings are expected to make lifestyle changes through education and
awareness. Increased awareness is reinforced with visual cues from energy
monitoring technologies similar to Prius instruments giving feedback on gas
mileage efficiencies, known as the “Prius Effect.” Raised consciousness of
energy usage and emphasis on energy savings is expected to influence lifestyle
changes of the occupants. Certain changes can be forced upon the occupants such
as restricting flow from water faucets and using less water to flush a toilet.
We are not able to control many energy uses. We installed technologies to
automate energy usage such as automatically turning off lights, setting back
heat or air conditioning when the alarm is set and other automated programs.
How these systems are ultimately used will have an impact on the overall energy
usage. Based on observations from online energy monitoring, lifestyle changes
can be improved. This contributed to more energy use and is an area where
possible energy reductions may occur in the future.

Lessons Learned

We are beginning to
believe a solar thermal system designed primarily to produce domestic hot water
should not have a dual use. If solar thermal is to be used to supplement
heating, a segregated system should be designed instead. This is partially due
to conflicting demands on the system that is difficult to control. We believe a
split system may have been a better option. We continue to work on solving this
problem.

Emphasis to
maximize electrical production from crystalline PV systems in lieu of thin-film
for aesthetic choices need to be practiced to achieve maximum results to attain
a net-zero goal. Technologies in building integrated photovoltaics need to
improve electrical output to the extent there is little difference in
electrical production compared to PV panel if they are to be considered as a
design option.

Relying on energy
savings from voluntary lifestyle changes in homes is difficult to realize.
Renewable energy systems need to be over designed so energy usages of occupants
are not impacting overall energy reduction goals.

Based on thirty
years performing construction services under Design-Bid-Build, we believe it
would be extremely difficult to integrate the new technologies and attain the
results seen in the HGA house without using the IPD approach. The
communication, coordination, and teamwork observed during design phase
contributed significantly to construction efficiencies, cost and quality.
Significantly fewer misunderstandings and claims for additional costs needed to
be addressed during construction. This contributed to a more pleasurable
working environment that increased productivity and a sense of pride and
ownership by all participants. As a builder, we enjoyed the approach immensely.
We hope our industry transitions from Design-Bid-Build to IPD.

ANALYSIS

Energy Use Analysis

This project is
unique since there is energy data three years prior to the fire and
re-construction of the house. Engineering is sufficiently advanced to
accurately calculate and project energy efficiencies, production and
consumption. Weather is a variable in renewable energy production and
consumption as it relates to renewable energy, heating, and cooling. Weather
cannot be controlled but the weather’s impact on energy consumption can be
controlled by reducing energy loss in winter and solar heat gain in summer. How
occupants operate a building is the variable in energy consumption the
designers, engineers, and constructors cannot control. In commercial buildings,
the variable can be entrusted to the building manager’s hands instead of
occupants. In homes, it is very personal and energy use habits amongst family
members can vary greatly. Certain family members conserve energy and others can
be very wasteful. Sometimes maintaining peace between family members has
priority over energy consumption behavior. It is difficult to determine what
extent family behavior contributes to energy consumption however it is a
factor.

The existing house
was 3,780 square feet; it increased in size to 4,770 square feet. The increase
in size is 26.2%. Three types of energy were used, electricity, propane, and #2
fuel oil. The owner provided us with three years of energy invoices. The usage
and cost was averaged for yearly use comparisons. The current local price for
energy cost on August 10, 2011 was used to calculate the current energy costs.
The existing energy data was increased by the same 26.2% increase in the size
of house. The average yearly cost of energy adjusted for increase in size and
based on current costs of energy is $10,639.23. The breakdown of the
calculation is seen in Table 2.

The existing house
used propane and #2 fuel oil for heating, propane for cooking and clothes
drying, and electricity for cooling. The current house uses electric for
heating and cooling performed by a geothermal system, propane for cooking and
clothes drying. Energy type use differs from existing to current house. Since
most energy in the current house is electricity the conversion of other fuel
types into the equivalent energy content of electricity in kWh is necessary for
comparison. The energy unit, British Thermal Unit (BTU) was used because of its
common use in design and construction. The energy conversion calculations in
Table 3 are based on
methodologies developed by Dr. Dennis Buffington at Penn State, College of
Agricultural Sciences.14 The
assumptions used for the conversions are also used in this methodology.15

The efficiency of
the combustion equipment is calculated in the “Energy Content BTU/Unit” column
in Table 4 by dividing the energy
content by efficiency (for propane: 91,600/0.85 = 107,765 BTU/gal). The energy
content in equivalent kWh in the existing house is increased by the same 26.2%
of the increase in size of the completed house. The adjusted equivalent energy
content based on three year actual energy data of the existing house is 97,890
kWh. The current average cost per kWh is $.20; it is multiplied to 97,890 kWh
to equal $19 578. This is the equivalent cost of energy if only electricity
were used. Table 4 identifies the details
of the calculation.

The current house uses propane for cooking and
drying clothes. Nine months of propane use was given by the owner. We averaged
monthly use and projected it to be 187 gallons for the year. Propane use is
then converted to equivalent kWh as we did in Table 4. Table 5 details the
calculation.

Table 6 sums the actual
energy of the completed house used over a one year period of time. We received
electric invoices for one year after the project was completed. The propane
energy is converted to equivalent kWh. The cost of propane is the actual cost
of propane projected for the year. 29,933 equivalent kWh of energy was used at
an actual cost of $5203.92.

The HGA house was
rated with a HERS Index of 25 which indicates a projected 75% energy reduction
from the HERS Standard Home. The actual energy reduction is 69.42%. It is
interesting to note the projected energy reduction is very close to the actual
energy reduction. We do not know if this supports the HERS indexing system
methodology or this is purely coincidental. Further analysis of the existing
home in comparison to the HERS Standard Home will need to be done to establish
an equivalent baseline for comparison. No conclusion can be made in the scope
of this paper.

The cost of energy
reducing technologies used in the HGA house amounted to $85,240 inclusive of
current incentives. The adjusted energy cost savings from the conclusions above
is $5,435.31. The pay-back period for the energy reducing technologies used is
15.7 years if the energy savings average continues on the same track as the
first year and energy costs remain the same. If we use 30 years (30 year
mortgage) for the life span of a home (we know houses last longer) then energy
savings begin making a net profit after 15 years or within half the life span
of a house. The premise made in the second paragraph of this paper is
upheld: “With currently available and proven technologies, reductions in
energy consumption on both new and existing buildings are estimated to achieve
30%–80%. When the costs of implementing the energy reduction technologies are
offset by energy savings, there is potential for a net profit over the life
span of the building.”

The cost of energy
reducing technologies used without tax rebates and Long Island Power Authority
rebates is $189,244. The pay-back period would have been 35 years if incentives
were not available. It is more difficult to justify a 35 year pay-back period
than 15 years and supports the importance of continuing with incentive
programs.

CO2 Emissions
Analysis

The CO2 data
value, kg CO2/unit for electric, propane, #2 fuel oil and the
methodology to measure GHG emissions of the operations stage of a building as
seen in Table 7 originates from the
common carbon metric.2 This
is a draft protocol to calculate GHG emissions in the operational phase of
buildings. The data for electricity is given by country for CO2 emissions
only. For that reason CO2e, carbon equivalent (six greenhouse gases)
is not used. To be consistent, only CO2 values were used for
electric, propane, and #2 fuel oil. The emission source of the existing house
is the quantity of energy used adjusted for the increase in size of the house.
The source of CO2 values in the common carbon metric comes from
the International Energy Agency (IEA), CO2 emissions from fuel
combustion, 2008.2

11.36 Metric
Tonnes CO2 reduction from fossil fuel based energy in first
year (The existing house CO2 emissions in metric tonne
minus the current house CO2 emissions in metric tonne equal
11.36 mt). The calculation is Scope I and II CO2 emissions for
the operational stage of the house. Scope I emissions are direct combustion of
fuels and Scope II is indirect combustion from offsite emissions such as
electric production. Table 7 identifies
the details of the calculations.

43.82% reduction of fossil fuel based energy CO2 emissions
in first year. It is interesting to note energy reduction was 69.42% while
CO2 emission reduction is only 43.82%. This is due to
significantly higher CO2 emissions per BTU in electricity from
the grid than other fuel types. The current house uses proportionately more
electricity compared to other fuel types than was used in the existing house.
The current house actually uses 6982 kWh more electricity, 1359 gallons less
propane, and 627 gallons less #2 fuel oil. A higher CO2 emission
in electricity per BTU results in less percentage reduction in CO2emissions
when compared to the percentage of energy reduction. The greatest impact
in reducing CO2 emissions in building operations is achieved by
reducing electricity usage from the grid. This is better understood when CO2 emissions
per BTU of different fuel types are compared with one another as illustrated in
Table 8 and
Figure 3.

Fig 3.

CO2 emissions/MM BTU.

The cost per BTU for electricity is approximately two
times that of propane and #2 fuel oil. An additional benefit of focusing
on grid electricity for CO2 emissions is that it will also have
the greatest impact on energy cost reduction. Or if one prefers, it can
also be said, focusing on electricity for cost reductions there is an
added benefit of attaining greater CO2 emission
reductions. This is also better understood when cost per BTU of different
fuel types are compared with one another as illustrated in Table 9 and
Figure 4.

Fig 4.

COST/MM BTU.

CONCLUSION

To borrow from the old adage: “There’s no accounting for
taste.” Taste in architecture varies greatly from one individual to another and
changes over time. We consistently resist change. As new technologies are
integrated into architecture, there is resistance to accept them. To attain
transformational change of our energy from fossil fuel to renewable energy,
there needs to be a paradigm change. Taste is based on past experiences,
aesthetic appeal is learned. We should learn to base aesthetic appeal on
attaining energy independence, freedom from fossil fuels and reduction in GHG
emissions. Then we will be able to accept change more readily.

This study shows that reducing electricity from the grid
has the greatest impact on both reducing energy cost and reducing CO2 emissions
in the operation of buildings. Whenever renewable energy is contemplated
priority should be on reducing electrical usage from the grid compared to other
energy types. This will have the greatest impact over the life span of a
building. When the cost of implementing energy reduction technologies are
offset by energy savings they start earning a net profit within 15 years, well
before the expected life span of a house. Applying lessons learned from this
project can greatly improve the pay-back period making the additional up-front
cost to implement technologies easier to accept.

Landfill avoidance through recycling required to earn
points for LEED platinum had a surprise benefit of creating 107 mt CO2e
offset when calculating embodied GHG emissions of the house. Having an
awareness of GHG emissions contributed to all HGA companies becoming carbon
neutral. We are certified carbon neutral for two years and we made a commitment
to continue being carbon neutral. Our new found awareness of GHG emissions
helped us see an opportunity by recycling sawdust from the millwork shop into
wood pellets to be used to heat the shop and our homes. This will generate
carbon mitigation offsets to further reduce our GHG emissions next year. If
this proves successful, we may expand the operation by grinding our clean wood
waste on the jobsite to make wood pellets. This illustrates how raising
awareness on emissions leads to other ways of reducing GHG emissions.

APPENDIX: LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES IN HGA HOUSE

New Technologies
Integrated

1.LED lighting

a.CREE
LR-6 Recessed Lights. Using only 12.5 W of input power to deliver 1000 lumens,
the LR6-DR1000 has unmatched fixture efficacy of up to 84 lumens per watt. It
consumes half the energy of a typical CFL down light while delivering the same
light output

Note:
Size of House Increased from 3780 sqft to 4770 sqft. 26.2% Increase in Size.

Electric-
kWh/yr

13,506.00

3,412

46,082,472

13,506

17,045

$3,408.91

Propane
- gal/yr

1,224.66

107,765

131,975,125

38,680

48,814

$9,762.76

#2
FuelOil-gal/yr

497.00

174,250

86,602,250

25,382

32,032

$6,406.33

TOTAL

77,567

97,890

$19,578.00

Table
V. Propane energy conversion to kWh.

Propane
Energy Content Conversion to kWh

Gallons
Propane

Energy
Content BTU/gal

Energy
Content E BTU

Energy
Content BTU/kWh

Conversion
to Equiv. kWh

187

107,765

20,152,000

3,412

5,906

Table
VI. Total current energy usage.

HGA
House Current Electric Net Usage - Total Energy Usage

Date

kWh
Used

Total
Charges

Days/Inv.

kWh/Day

Cost/
Day

Cost/
kWh

6/16/10-7/30/10

1,869

$398.16

44

42.48

$9.05

$0.21

7/30/10-9/7/10

2,001

$420.21

39

51.31

$10.77

$0.21

9/7/10-10/7/10

870

$183.29

30

29.00

$6.11

$0.21

10/7/10-11/4/10

1,083

$213.74

28

38.68

$7.63

$0.20

11/4/10-12/7/10

2,753

$533.43

33

83.42

$16.16

$0.19

12/7/10-1/6/11

4,132

$788.38

30

137.73

$26.28

$0.19

1/6/11-2/11/11

5,306

$974.64

36

147.39

$27.07

$0.18

2/11/11-4/7/11

4,529

$839.57

55

82.35

$15.26

$0.19

4/7/11-5/12/11

887

$170.55

35

25.34

$4.87

$0.19

5/12/11-6/7/11

161

$37.68

26

6.19

$1.45

$0.23

6/7/11-6/16/11

436

$88.27

9

48.44

$9.81

$0.20

Total
Electricity

24,027

$4,647.92

365

62.94

$12.23

$0.20

Propane
Conver.

5,906

$556.00

Average

Average

Average

Total
Electric Equiv

29,933

$5,203.92

Table
VII. CO2 emissions reduced.

Metric
Tonne CO2 Emissions Reduced

Existing
House Energy Adjusted for Increase In Size

Current
House Energy

Emission
Source

Exist.
House Adj.

kg
CO2/unit

Existing
CO2mt

Current
House

kg
CO2/ unit

Current
CO2 mt

Electricity-kWh

17,045

0.55866

9.52

24,027

0.55866

13.42

Propane-gal

1,546

6.09451

9.42

187

6.09451

1.14

#2
Fuel Oil-gal

627

11.12911

6.98

0

11.12911

0.00

Total

25.92

14.56

Note:

11.36

Metric
Tonne CO2 Reduced

43.82%

Less
CO2 Emissions

Table
VIII. CO2 emissions/MM BTU.

CO2 Emissions
Per M ill ion BTU

Energy
Type

BTU/Unit

kg
CO2/ unit

kg
CO2/ M M BTU

%CO2<
Electric

Note:
Propane has 65.46% less CO2 emissions
per BTU than electricity. #2 Fuel oil has 60.99% less CO2 emissions per BTU than
electricity.

Electric-kWh

3,412

0.55866

163.73

Propane-gal

107,765

6.09451

56.55

65.46%

#2
Fuel Oil-gal

174,250

11.12911

63.87

60.99%

Table
IX. Cost/MM BTU.

Cost
Per Million BTU

Energy
Type

BTU/Unit

Cost/Unit

Cost/MM
BTU

%Cost<
Electric

Note:
All unit costs for energy type are local costs in the Hamptons, Long Island,
New York on August 10, 2011. Propane cost 52.67% less per BTU than
electricity. #2 Fuel oil cost 59.27% less per BTU than electricity.

12.World Resources Institute, World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, The Greenhouse Gas Protocol—A
Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, Revised Edition, World
Resources Institute, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, 2004.